Is there any actual reason to kill the goblin children (other than "eventually they may grow up and do bad things")? Why is "ignore the goblin children" off the table?

Am I missing something, or almost everyone just making a basic bizarre blunder in thinking the only choices are butchery or babysitting?

Quote from: Skarg;915618Is there any actual reason to kill the goblin children (other than "eventually they may grow up and do bad things")? Why is "ignore the goblin children" off the table?

Am I missing something, or almost everyone just making a basic bizarre blunder in thinking the only choices are butchery or babysitting?

I mentioned that early on but it got lost in the outrage.

But like killing. Depends on the setting. Leaving them to menace the land later could be seen as an act of evil through inaction. Or could be seen as an act of good, or even neutrality. That might cause a slight or even large alignment nudge. Or nothing at all.

As noted. In BX alignment was so fluid that pretty much anything could be friendly, or deadly hostile. You had to approach each on a case by case basis and sort it out if the DM was allowing that sort of reaction roll every encounter. Otherwise its back to the "are they attacking us?" question. If not then decide what to do. Leaving them is indeed an option. Especially if you are stumped what to do or just dont want to deal with it. Goblin kids? Give em a warning not to grow up bad like their parents or you'll come back and finish the job. Or just sweep through like the goblin equivalent of a natural disaster. Now you are the boogyman for generations of goblins. "Now dear you know if you dont eat your broccoli Skarg will appear in the night and eat you!"

There's a good reason most of us were Neutral in the original Greyhawk.  Goblins are cheap hirelings.

"Hell, yeah, of course I'll build a daycare."

Quote from: Skarg;915618Is there any actual reason to kill the goblin children (other than "eventually they may grow up and do bad things")? Why is "ignore the goblin children" off the table?

Am I missing something, or almost everyone just making a basic bizarre blunder in thinking the only choices are butchery or babysitting?

As I mentioned.  I'm playing through Caves of Chaos right now.  So this is coming up through natural play for me.

Now, to be fair, I haven't read the module in a while.  However, I'm fairly certain the entire reason the module posits for visiting the Caves of Chaos is to eliminate the threat it poses.  I feel it's pretty heavily implied, if not directly stated, that the PCs have gathered at the Keep to find the Caves and exterminate the evil creatures therein.

And that's fine.  I honestly don't have any problem with that.  But when I'm playing  a good character, there are always moral issues.

So what do I do with the goblin babies?  This situation comes about after slaughtering all of, if not nearly all the other goblins.  Let's assume I've killed all the adult goblins, because that kind of thing tends to happen, and did happen in this playthrough.  What do I do about the "helpless young"?

What does "helpless young" mean?  Does it mean small children like 4 year olds?  Does it mean babies?

So, is leaving them there to fend for themselves an option?  Yes, it certainly is.  However, that doesn't exactly strike me as a good act.  I haven't really done anything to spare the goblin children.  I've merely said I'm too lazy to kill them myself.  What chance do they really have with no caregivers?  Will the orcs adopt them and care for them?  Will the minotaur turn his maze into a nursery?  Maybe.  However, I think it's more likely that the child goblins will become slaves for the other humanoids (meaning I'll have to make the decision again when I slaughter all those others), or the other humanoids will simply kill them.  Or the wilderness will be the death of them.

If some orcs have killed a merchant family, I kill the orcs, and then a human toddler is left behind.  Is it a good act to just leave it by the side of the deserted road where I found it?  Have I really given it a chance, or have I left it to die?

Do I take the leftover goblin kids with me?  Where do I take a bunch of goblin kids?  Do I take them back to the Keep?  What do I do with them once I'm there?  Will the Keep even let me bring them in?  This also goes for any adult captives.  Do they become slaves?   Does something worse happen?  I don't think the people of the Keep are going to take kindly to these kittens I've brought back.  So, once again, I've simply delayed slavery, torture, and/or death for these captives.

Do I take them as my followers and just live out in the wilderness?  IIRC, there are some bandits watching the Keep.  Do I go join them at their camp and start raising goblin children in the shadow of the Keep?  Do I find my own hill somewhere?  My options are very limited as soon as I take these things in tow.  Getting rid of them is like trying to sell old RPG stuff.  No one wants it.

In all honesty, I don't know what to do when the situation comes up.  My GM and I have talked about it, and we've agreed we don't like it, and we don't like the shadow it casts on what we're doing.  He has agreed to remove the situation from the module so we can have an enjoyable exploration and hack.  Because it's already bad enough when I cast sleep and start killing helpless targets, but at least they're intended to be combatants.

And this stuff is coming up because I'm trying to play my character in some small part like an actual person, someone who sees these things as living beings instead of obstacles in the challenge box.

Quote from: Skarg;915618Is there any actual reason to kill the goblin children (other than "eventually they may grow up and do bad things")? Why is "ignore the goblin children" off the table?

Am I missing something, or almost everyone just making a basic bizarre blunder in thinking the only choices are butchery or babysitting?

I have simply been addressing the question asked bt the thread title. I can think of plenty of solutions to the problem that don't involve killing anybody. Goblins could make pretty good stand-ins for Oompa-Loompas...

Quote from: Gabriel2;915624As I mentioned.  I'm playing through Caves of Chaos right now.  So this is coming up through natural play for me.

Now, to be fair, I haven't read the module in a while.  However, I'm fairly certain the entire reason the module posits for visiting the Caves of Chaos is to eliminate the threat it poses.  I feel it's pretty heavily implied, if not directly stated, that the PCs have gathered at the Keep to find the Caves and exterminate the evil creatures therein.

From the original module.

QuoteBACKGROUND
The Realm of mankind is narrow and constricted. Always the forces of Chaos press upon its borders, seeking to enslave its populace, rape its riches, and steal its treasures. If it were not for a stout few, many in the Realm would indeed fall prey to the evil which surrounds them. Yet, there are always certain exceptional and brave members of humanity, as well as similar individuals among its allies - dwarves, elves, and halflings - who rise above the common level and join battle to stave off the darkness which would otherwise overwhelm the land. Bold adventurers from the Realm set off for the Borderlands to seek their fortune. It is these adventurers who, provided they survive the challenge, carry the battle to the enemy.

and

QuoteSomewhere nearby, amidst the dark forests and tangled fens, are the Caves of Chaos where fell creatures lie in wait. All this you know,

So going in the adventurers have the base assumption that the place is infested with monsters that are raiding the lands around. After that you have to sort out who's who and whats what. The Lizardmen for example will leave the party alone as long as they dont bug them. But how the DM interprets and runs it is going to really be the telling factor.

The NEXT version "Caves of Chaos gives a few possible options for reasons since they removed the keep. These include the cult gathering monsters to the caves to make war, and another that has the monsters as unwilling slaves under the thrall of the cult. Or even the PCs are there to negotiate peace with the monsters. Theres mention in the text here and there of raiding. Though not who is being raided. So pretty open to approaches.

Quote from: Opaopajr;915611You are conflating your modern concepts as the entirety of the modern world. Go look up Islamic "banking" as a start and how cash can be very divorced from your assumed modern concepts. Your ignorance shows. I lived that reality.

lol, what part of "modern western society" (yes that's a direct quote from my post) uses Islamic banking?

Your argument is disingenuous, sir.

Quote from: CRKrueger;915497Players make choices and change their minds for different reasons, morals or ethics are just one of the possible factors.  No one has to be patting themselves on the back, virtue signaling from the rooftops or rubbing one out, they just have to be roleplaying.

Whose morals and ethics? The player or the PC?

If its the PC's morals and ethics deciding the actions, then its roleplaying.

Otherwise, its spank and wank. But again, if a happy group of gamers want to have a feel good session of rub & tug around the table, so be it.

Quote from: Skarg;915618Am I missing something, or almost everyone just making a basic bizarre blunder in thinking the only choices are butchery or babysitting?

"Butchery & Babysitting" is gonna be the hot new OSR retroclone.

Just $200 on Kickstarter next month.

For me it comes down to how alignment and a species interact. Two models I have encountered within D&D campaigns.

1) A species listed alignment is hardwired into them. If it says all members of a species are Chaotic Evil, *all* members of a species are Chaotic Evil. Under that model killing members of that species saves the lives of innocents regardless of the age or condition (wounded for example) of that individual.

2) The alignment listed for a species is a *tendency*, the society's 'norm'. It is *not* hardwired in and many individuals will vary in their alignment. Additionally those tendencies are learned behaviors gained during the specie members upbringing. In that case, a blanket slaughter is an evil act and immoral.

I run that mortal beings have no hardwired alignments. No more than all humans or elves or dwarves are one alignment, neither are orcs or goblins or bugbears. Extraplanar beings are often hardwired and alignment variations are far more rare but not impossible. Just my two coppers.

This just illustrates why I really bloody hate "alignment" for anything besides vehicle tires and Planescape.

Quote from: Omega;915620... Leaving them to menace the land later could be seen as an act of evil through inaction.

Am I the only one who sees this line of thought as more evil than being a goblin? I feel a righteous intuition that we should kill the people who think this way. It seems like killing the righteous adult killers is far more likely to reduce the overall body count than snuffing the goblin kids.

What's the chance of orphaned goblin kids surviving in a dungeon environment and the local wilderness long enough to grow up and "menace the land"?

Quote from: Gabriel2;915624As I mentioned.  I'm playing through Caves of Chaos right now.  So this is coming up through natural play for me.

Now, to be fair, I haven't read the module in a while.  However, I'm fairly certain the entire reason the module posits for visiting the Caves of Chaos is to eliminate the threat it poses.  I feel it's pretty heavily implied, if not directly stated, that the PCs have gathered at the Keep to find the Caves and exterminate the evil creatures therein.

And that's fine.  I honestly don't have any problem with that.  But when I'm playing  a good character, there are always moral issues.

So what do I do with the goblin babies?  This situation comes about after slaughtering all of, if not nearly all the other goblins.  Let's assume I've killed all the adult goblins, because that kind of thing tends to happen, and did happen in this playthrough.  What do I do about the "helpless young"?

What does "helpless young" mean?  Does it mean small children like 4 year olds?  Does it mean babies?

So, is leaving them there to fend for themselves an option?  Yes, it certainly is.  However, that doesn't exactly strike me as a good act.  I haven't really done anything to spare the goblin children.  I've merely said I'm too lazy to kill them myself.  What chance do they really have with no caregivers?  Will the orcs adopt them and care for them?  Will the minotaur turn his maze into a nursery?  Maybe.  However, I think it's more likely that the child goblins will become slaves for the other humanoids (meaning I'll have to make the decision again when I slaughter all those others), or the other humanoids will simply kill them.  Or the wilderness will be the death of them.

If some orcs have killed a merchant family, I kill the orcs, and then a human toddler is left behind.  Is it a good act to just leave it by the side of the deserted road where I found it?  Have I really given it a chance, or have I left it to die?

Do I take the leftover goblin kids with me?  Where do I take a bunch of goblin kids?  Do I take them back to the Keep?  What do I do with them once I'm there?  Will the Keep even let me bring them in?  This also goes for any adult captives.  Do they become slaves?   Does something worse happen?  I don't think the people of the Keep are going to take kindly to these kittens I've brought back.  So, once again, I've simply delayed slavery, torture, and/or death for these captives.

Do I take them as my followers and just live out in the wilderness?  IIRC, there are some bandits watching the Keep.  Do I go join them at their camp and start raising goblin children in the shadow of the Keep?  Do I find my own hill somewhere?  My options are very limited as soon as I take these things in tow.  Getting rid of them is like trying to sell old RPG stuff.  No one wants it.

In all honesty, I don't know what to do when the situation comes up.  My GM and I have talked about it, and we've agreed we don't like it, and we don't like the shadow it casts on what we're doing.  He has agreed to remove the situation from the module so we can have an enjoyable exploration and hack.  Because it's already bad enough when I cast sleep and start killing helpless targets, but at least they're intended to be combatants.

And this stuff is coming up because I'm trying to play my character in some small part like an actual person, someone who sees these things as living beings instead of obstacles in the challenge box.

Thanks. This adds a lot of context. I wrote a huge thoughtful reply to this, and then stupidly hit "Reply With Quote" on some other post rather than "Post Quick Reply", with the result that the browser tossed out my text with no chance to recover it. ARGH.

Um.

So, yeah. Seems like it's basically a "same page" thing, with many ways to go, and can lead to upsets if/when people aren't on the same page, which can either be interesting or not depending on the players and how it's handled.

I think it gets messy mainly when some or all of the players & GM try to ignore the situation. For example, if the players learn late that their heroic mission involves killing children that aren't clearly evil, and some players want to "just" kill them, while others aren't at all comfortable with it, and the GM doesn't handle it well. Personally I think even that situation can be interesting - sometimes I think a party breaking up and fighting each other over the game situation can be some of the more interesting parts of a game, if done well and if the players don't balk at that because it's really not the type of game they want to play.

In my games, generally the habitations and children aren't the same as the combat locations, and when they are, the children and non-combatants are generally allowed to run away and hide... people who hunt down the non-combatants are of a different moral orientation from others, as are people who feel like finding homes for orphans or not, and often they don't get along very well in adventuring (or military) parties, and that's just what it is. But even when I've had say a dwarf party sack an orc village, the orcs don't get every adult killed, and the dwarves generally don't try to chase down the non-combatants (or if they were cornered underground, probably wouldn't butcher them, unless it was revenge for that sort of act). Except in the cases where behaviour IS that bad, in which case that's that, too, but I treat it seriously. What I don't want to do is "just let" players have their PCs commit atrocities and pretend like that's normal and sort of didn't happen or isn't weird, because when I have let that slide, it seems to lead to a kind of psycopathy for the PCs, which I'm not willing to not call out for what it is.

Quote from: Tetsubo;915669For me it comes down to how alignment and a species interact. Two models I have encountered within D&D campaigns.

1) A species listed alignment is hardwired into them. If it says all members of a species are Chaotic Evil, *all* members of a species are Chaotic Evil. Under that model killing members of that species saves the lives of innocents regardless of the age or condition (wounded for example) of that individual.

2) The alignment listed for a species is a *tendency*, the society's 'norm'. It is *not* hardwired in and many individuals will vary in their alignment. Additionally those tendencies are learned behaviors gained during the specie members upbringing. In that case, a blanket slaughter is an evil act and immoral.

I run that mortal beings have no hardwired alignments. No more than all humans or elves or dwarves are one alignment, neither are orcs or goblins or bugbears. Extraplanar beings are often hardwired and alignment variations are far more rare but not impossible. Just my two coppers.

Those distinctions are pretty key in these discussions, as it feels like some people are talking about 1 and people are responding to 2 and vice versa.

Personally I take the number 2 approach in D&D, which would generally make it not good to slaughter goblin children.

Alignments and world in these kinds of situations are a bit like thought experiments. You are not being asked whether you think it is right or not in this world, but given the alignment and cosmology of the setting whether it is right. If someone goes with assumption number 1, and kills orc babies on the weekend, I don't think that reflects their personal morality in the real world. I can also buy into and run with the assumptions of a setting where there is a source of objective morality, and that source advances principles I don't agree with in real life. What matters to me more than anything is the consistency in the setting. As long as the cosmology doesn't get too wonky I can buy into it and play a lawful good paladin whose idea of goodness is quite different from my own.

Quote from: TristramEvans;915712This just illustrates why I really bloody hate "alignment" for anything besides vehicle tires and Planescape.

Planescape has alignment? When?

Planescape blurred alignment even more. Now you have nice demons and wicked angels and all that. Alignment was chucked for Factions which were all also shades of grey. That was one of the early complaints and praises of Planescape. "It turned the outer planes into Victorian London"

Quote from: Skarg;915717Am I the only one who sees this line of thought as more evil than being a goblin? I feel a righteous intuition that we should kill the people who think this way. It seems like killing the righteous adult killers is far more likely to reduce the overall body count than snuffing the goblin kids.

What's the chance of orphaned goblin kids surviving in a dungeon environment and the local wilderness long enough to grow up and "menace the land"?

In a fantasy setting? Who knows? One table may see it that way. Another wont. Thats the point.